fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4790 ]

[ SECRET POST #4790 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #686.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ngl i think some of it comes from internalized or unaddressed homophobia--they want to ship the gay thing, but can't go all in unless they can "womanize" one of the men so that it blurs the lines and resembles a more "traditional" het ship (albeit a very harlequin romance variety)

Maybe for some people, but I think the vast majority of the time, people just write and read what they find hot.

Cool and people are allowed to question that too.

I mean, they can. But those people might get soundly told to piss off.

Fucking this. Like think what you want, and criticize the "problematic implications" of people's kinks in your own space if you want to. But when you do it in public, or in someone else's space, I'm going to criticize you in turn, for being a judgy ass who is apparently incapable of grasping the concept of YKINMKATIOK.

I mean we can go around in circles about this forever, yeah. But I think it's worth pointing out where kinks are based in bad shit, and in this case, it's almost always presented as a very prevalent (mis)characterization rather than just fun kinky shit in its own private space.

NAYRT - I think there's a difference between saying, "This popular kink may, in part, be rooted in a societal concept of [X] that is problematic." And saying, "I believe it's people's internalized homophobia that makes them find this kink I don't understand hot." The former is an entirely valid analysis about the trope. The latter is an unfounded judgement/criticism of people who, as far as you know, haven't done anything wrong.

...internalized homophobia IS a problematic societal concept, not a judgement call. "Maybe we should talk about this" isn't an attack.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 01:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 01:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 01:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 01:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 14:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-02-17 14:55 (UTC) - Expand

okay im not sure why you think that's separate from actual social tropes.

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

But surely you're not actually implying that it's cool to criticize people for being homophobic because they have a kink you don't personally share?

there is no difference between personal enjoyment and sexual enjoyment in art, and no reason to justify one but not the other, let's start there. if you can criticize any type of writing for the tropes employed, and you can although you must think differently for your understanding to make any sense, porn is not exempt. there's no separate entitlement to porn than there is to any other art, and that's especially true when things are put up for public consumption.

second, i can definitely criticize tropes for being homophobic and sexist, lmao, but you feeling as though criticism of porn is the same as a personal criticism is really ironic so thanks for the laugh (eta: and when i say that I mean yeah sometimes people like homophobic things because it's framed a certain way socially and that's clicks something in their brain. that does mean they've accepted certain harmful things in certain contexts. the personal is never separate from the social).

third, what i was saying was that there is no separating personal enjoyment from social exposure to the same ideas. i'm not saying that seeking out personal enjoyment in fiction is the same as acting on that personal enjoyment in real life, but the social influences the personal, and so it's not ridiculous (there are whole disciplines on media criticism!) and in fact necessary to examine tropes when they come up in writing, regardless of whether you feel they have only personal merit, critically.

hth

Edited 2020-02-17 00:02 (UTC)

+100000

I mean, sure examine them all you want, but as a fellow anon said upthread, if you're being a judgey douche in a public space, it's you who deserves criticism, not the person whose kinks you're needlessly judging.

And deciding for oneself, without evidence of any kind, that people harbor homophobic sentiments, simply because of what they kink on in fucking fiction, is being a judgey douche, whether you get that or not.

second, i can definitely criticize tropes for being homophobic and sexist, lmao, but you feeling as though criticism of porn is the same as a personal criticism is really ironic

Also good for a laugh? You apparently not having bothered to read the thread you're jumping into:

ngl i think some of it comes from internalized or unaddressed homophobia--they want to ship the gay thing, but can't go all in unless they can "womanize" one of the men so that it blurs the lines and resembles a more "traditional" het ship

See that there? That is very much not criticizing the trope without criticizing the individual. It's kind of the opposite, actually. If they'd stuck with criticizing the trope, rather than being a judgey douche who presumes to know other peoples hearts and minds better than they themselves do, based on nothing more than a kink they like in fiction, I wouldn't have bothered to argue with them in the first place. FFS.

YES! Thank you! Could not agree more.

That's certainly an aggressive reading of the comment.

Nayrt - Really? Because I dont even have this kink but it seems like a pretty straightforward reading to me. Maybe just dont accuse people you dont know of internalized homophobia when you have nothing to actually base it on. Because doing that is what seems like an aggressive take.

if you're being judgy on the fic? sure, there's enough fandom convention for that to be considered rude. in a public space? that's fundamentally ridiculous. but i'll assume you had these same problems with 50 shades' (and the author's) very public disapprobation out of benefit of the doubt and just say you are 4000 or so years to late for this type of media criticism dislike.

the evidence is the fic. and this is true of any and all media criticism, lmao.

did you read the rest of my comment. it's funny and ironic that you have a problem with it because you're so on about some things just being personal (kink) but you are claiming it's ridiculous for people reading it to think it's personal (thinking). it's hilarious.

if you can criticize any type of writing for the tropes employed, and you can although you must think differently for your understanding to make any sense, porn is not exempt. there's no separate entitlement to porn than there is to any other art

This is tricky, because I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, but I also don’t think you’re entirely right. It’s a gray area, imo. Because there’s a level of rationality and even meaning that is generally expected of most fiction, but is not remotely expected of porn.

The degree of rationality and meaning that is expected of fiction varies widely from one work to the next, which is what makes this argument tricky. But even the most vapid fictional works are rarely saying nothing. The author is putting their sensibilities into the text in some capacity.

Whereas often when it comes to porn, it is not written to mean anything, say anything, or even be rational - nor is it necessarily consumed for those purposes. Which is why judging porn on the basis of its moral values generally doesn’t make much sense, unless it is evident that it is actively and deliberately seeking to perpetuate something harmful.

Because there’s a level of rationality and even meaning that is generally expected of most fiction, but is not remotely expected of porn.
this just isn't true at all. the difference in meaning in (published by major labels) romance novels that about mostly about sex and the ones which have no sex can be fucking nil. they're writing about a dynamic and the sex can be just an aspect of that dynamic or the main point of the writing or not a part of the the dynamic someone wishes to explore. this is especially true with shorter novellas. and if you think that those authors who write no sex are trying less hard to excite their readers solely on a base level, I honestly would say maybe you don't actually understand porn. this difference in rationality or meaning in non-porn fiction vs. porn you're talking about doesn't exist, lol.

and i've read plenty of published crack even if we move away from romance, and plenty of mysteries are saying nothing in particular beyond clicking an audience's investigative crank.

now that that premise is debunked, it always makes sense to talk about what is valued in art. im not talking about morality as such or specifically either (and I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about homophobia and misogyny on the level of morality either in these circumstances). i'm talking about social constructs and concepts and how they appear in art. most of social life is about dynamic. that's going to come through in porn. it's not necessary to view it through the lens of meaning and rationality to critique it there. most of the way we are taught to view society has no rationality at all, and the only meaning is self-interested organization.

I think you can and should critically examine kinks and tropes of pornography. I also think that there is a meaningful difference between personal enjoyment and sexual enjoyment in art - that is, they are different modes of engagement with different functions, and so the norms that apply to them may be different.

And as a result of that, I think it's important to be really, really careful in how you talk about criticisms of kink and pornography, because I don't think that there is any kink that could only be homophobic or sexist. And because, for various reasons, we should have a pro-kink bias going in. So we should think of such conversations mostly in terms of getting people to be more critical and thoughtful about kinks, and enacting and imagining those kinks in ways that aren't harmful.

+1000000

they are different modes of engagement with different functions so the norms that apply to them may be different.
I actually do NOT think you can make this distinction (are there some type of personal and sexual enjoyment that differ? yes. does every type? no. there are just so many ways that "getting off" can straddle the non-sexual that we still critique. as I said in another comment romance as a genre really straddles this), so I'll have to disagree

I don't think that there is any kink that could only be homophobic or sexist
of course there can. that can be the kink.
second, I don't you should have an unnuanced pro-kink bias going in. I think you're saying so because there is an anti-kink worldview (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think that you ignore what communities are impacted by certain kink even in fiction in order to do that (nor in the response, but that tends to not be as much about privilege when its coming from an impacted community).

finally, i don't actually think you can get people to be more critical about kinks without acknowledging that there are acceptances of certain social concepts behind enjoyment of the kink. at best I think you can lay off the same disapprobation that certain social concepts generate in non-fictional interactions, but I don't think that requires ignoring that fact all-together.

i'm the anon who accidentally started this mess (while trying to make a simple observation dof societal trends, not some nasty personal judgement), so thank you for having the spoons and eloquence to go into detail where i couldn't.

(no subject)

meadowphoenix - 2020-02-17 18:47 (UTC) - Expand

I actually do NOT think you can make this distinction

Disagree on principle. Of course in actual practice things are often complex, and you can and do have things where different modes of engagement, different genres, etc commingle and co-exist. but it's still a useful and true analytical distinction to make. and imo its really important and central to analyzing anything at all to understand the audience, the intended audience, the audience reaction, the genre, how it can be interacted with and is interacted with

I don't you should have an unnuanced pro-kink bias going in. I think you're saying so because there is an anti-kink worldview (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think that you ignore what communities are impacted by certain kink even in fiction in order to do that (nor in the response, but that tends to not be as much about privilege when its coming from an impacted community).

I think that there should generally be a pro-kink bias for two fundamental reasons: first of all, on principle, sexual interactions between consenting adults should generally be considered acceptable without a specific reason otherwise. we should generally accept sexuality as part of normal, healthy, mature human life and part of that means accepting its manifold variety of expression. second, strict standards of sexual morality tend to be disproportionately used as weapons against disadvantaged groups, and in particular, women and queer people. so we should be very aware of that as well.

but let me be clear, when I say a pro-kink bias, I'm not asking for it to be un-nuanced, or total. What I have in mind is that our general attitude should be that most kinks are OK unless there's some kind of strong argument otherwise, that we should accept in general that people have kinks and that kinkiness in itself is not a moral or immoral quality, and that we should generally approach kink with the mindset of figuring out a safe, sane way for consenting adults to be kinky if it's at all possible.

finally, i don't actually think you can get people to be more critical about kinks without acknowledging that there are acceptances of certain social concepts behind enjoyment of the kink.

I think the only word in this that I really disagree with is "acceptance"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only